Recently on the boards, there has been alot of threads discussing the need for Bannings of certain cards in the game. I think it began with the Wildling "problem" and has continued on to The Laughing Storm, Narrow Escape, other "broken" Martell events. The last time I saw this much clamor for the banning of cards was Fear of Winter and Siege of Winterfall late spring/early summer last year.

Back in the CCG days there was a flurry of banning in Westeros Block, but after that they were few and far between. That was one thing I liked about AGOT. Rather than ban every power card that unduly influenced the metagame, the community either came up with ways to deal with the problem, or FFG created cards to shift the environment or made erratas to the power cards. While I didn't agree with all the erratas(tourney grounds), I appreciated the fact that there was a miniscule pool of cards that were outright banned.

Why the shift in attitude?

Does it take too long for cards to get printed to shift the environment?

Do we dislike an unbalanced environment for any period of time so cannot wait for the coming solutions?

Are we too lazy to change our decks and playstyle to adapt to the current environment?

Are we too used to playing other CCG's to appreciate the difference in power and balance of AGOT?

What makes me think I have enough insight to determine what's good for the entire metagame?

Just some random thoughts that have popped in my head after reading the boards the last couple of months....

You know, I think you might be on to something with the thought about it taking too long for cards to hit the meta designed to shift it a certain way in response to a particular problem card. I mean, the next set is already wrapping up testing by the time we start seeing the first packs of a particular set, right? So by the time we realize that a card in a set is a problem, it's probably going to be two cycles down the line before we can correct it by the creation of new cards.

For better or for worse, I don't feel decks in the LCG era have the ability to react to power cards like they used to in the CCG era.

For one thing, most of the search plots are double edged. While I could go look for my Castelan to counter your TLS, how am I to know you aren't going to grab shadow Varys, or even just another problem card for me to deal with.

Also, target character, location, and attachment control cards seem either more scarce, have a situational cost, or in most cases both. You can lump the current cancels into that group as well.

I guess you could say I think the "tool box" cards in my decks are weaker, and harder to get when I need them. This isn't a bad thing, except when cards with a CCG era feel to them start to creep into the LCG. Then we either wait for a silver bullet card (boo), for the card pool to adjust to the point where the card is no longer so dominant, or for an errata to be made. While we wait, it's easy to just say ban/errata it.

Though I agree that calls for bans/erratas are much more common, I think you have to look at the overall change in environment and deckbuilding. Most houses still lack enough gold + draw to get to the solutions they need to defeat "card X." In the CCG era, the game moved fast, so a power card might present an issue, but it was also easier to search/draw into a solution.

Moreover, I think some natural issues were resolved with CCG's rotation. I know we don't have a huge cardpool, but it's getting near the point where it typically was in CCG, isn't it? So a certain decktype in CCG might dominate one season, then be phased the next. If there were plans to phase out certain earlier cards, it might make people less likely to call for bans against newer cards. Newer cards are not "good" in a vacuum...Alchemist's Guild Hall was powerful in large part because the Castellan exists.

So to recap, the power cards today aren't necessarily more powerful than they were during CCG, it's just harder to deal with them and/or recover from them AND there's an expectation that they will be around for a long time.

At least, that's my personal feeling.

I really like all of the points that have been made, and I think they are accurate, but I'm still not sure that we are seeing anything new. I remember many complaints about "broken" cards during the CCG era with much whining for FFG to do something. Remember Prince's Loyalist and VED Davos? It took forever for FFG to fix these cards and we were still in the CCG format. I believe it has been so long since we had a reason to complain about certain cards that we forgot how it was in the past.

Throw one more thing into this thinking of why bans might be more common - and possibly even the better solution - in the LCG environment. Remember that the reported policy intent is to never have rotation. Remember that in the CCG era, when things started to get really bad, we'd be hearing things like "well, regardless, it will rotate out soon." You will (supposedly) never hear that in the LCG. So not only does it take longer to get "answer cards/mechanics" into the environment, it takes longer (if ever) for problem cards to leave.

The only way to remove a problem card from the environment is to ban it. Mix that with the considerably more casual orientation of LCG and banning might be the cleaner solution than errata - that might have to continually change as the environment continually changes.

ktom said:

With the increase of threads about banning causes me to wonder how much of the community is casual and how much is competitive. Do we want these bans to keep the game more approachable for the incoming casual players or do we want these cards banned for the competitive environment, or both?

Wrecking Ball said:

Good point ktom. I can't wait to really get back into this game.

ktom said:

I don't think the two are mutually exclusive though- I think it's fair to say that a game with a healthy competitive environment will also foster a welcoming/fun casual scene.

KP - I can see where you are coming ftom. But you may be approaching this form teh smae way I am - from the point of view of long time CCG veterans. I ahve been arguing against banning problem cards (to the extent that ti is possible) but I can see the other side of the argument. I think this game does take slower to evolve based on the release structure - and for people who are mostly expereinced only in LCG era competition - banning may seem the more elegant solution.

Certainly its simpler.

I still would prefer to see the environemnt sort tislef out through added cards - but I admit i amy need to adjust my thinking and expectations. We got a new expansion eveyr four months or so. as Dan points out up thread - a problem card might take a year to fix. sic chapter apcks with the other six already in teh produciton pipeline = a long wait for a solve.

Plus R&D has done some weird things lately and confidence in them may not be high. The Wildling agenda was cealrly a problem from the outset and they stuck one errate in that didn;t work before the ban on Blood. Narrow Escape went through two chanegs before they got it right. There are other examples - those two jump out at me.

So it may be just us Kevin. We may be briging our CCG expectations to the LCG model - and it may not be mature yet.

Wrecking Ball said:

I would have to agree with this. It has been more lately with a few cards (mainly TLS but some others) that are making people scratch their heads - plus the environment doesn't have as many cards as the CCG era did (although it is getting close!).

But, there was just as much talk about it before - the Defenders Agenda, Loyalist, the Bara traitor, that 4/4/4 plot, and talk about many others (the Stark agenda with traitors, the Eyrie, etc.).

It always seems like now is more than before (ask my grandparents how great things were during the Cold War), but usually that isn't the case.

Lastly, I think the LCG model is trying to figure out the correct power level. Westeros really started this game out with a bang and had VERY playable cards until it was rotated. Same with every other large base set. In the LCG model they really eased their way into things - how many Core Set or the first set of chapter packs (~Bannermen FTW!!!) do you use? Other than the staples (i.e. locations)? Not a ton other than the Fury Plots.

rings said:

Actually, when looking at the Core set, other than House Stark, there are a ton of cards that I regularly see in Lanny, Targ and Bara decks.

As for the Clash of Arms Chapter packs, against, I still see a bunch of it in regular play, such as:

War of the 5 Kings - Big Armies for Bara, Lanny, Icy Catapault, FLaming Pitched Tower, and I imagine the Maester of War will see more play with a Maester themed set coming out.

Ancient Enemies - Fury Plots (x6) , Bear Island, Dragon Thief, Toll Gate, Saltwife

Sacred Bonds - To Be A * Cycle (x3), Heralds (x6), Feral Pack, Fiery Followers

Epic Battles - Epic Battle Events (x3), Bastard of Godsgrace, The Gift, The Land Beyond the Wall

Sacred Bonds - Old Nan, Rhaegar, Rhaegar's Harp, Desperate Tactics, Battle of Ruby Ford, Castellan, Disgruntled Mercenary, Devious Intentions, Hunting Spear, House Umber Berserkers

Calling the Banners - Uhh, yeah, not much I see from here other than the Banner for the Storm. I have at times seen Jory Cassel, Lancel and Fishwhiskers

Ots amazing hwo different meats are. like rings many fo the carsd you name dobbs, i ahven't seen in YEARS:

I know I ahven't seen a Herald in a competitive deck since Summer 2008. That jumped right out at me. I haven't seen the Lannister Army, Bear Island, Flaming Pitch tower, Salt Wife, The Gift/Beyond the wall, Desperate Tactics (I don't even know what this card does), Hunting spear or Jory Cassel at all alst year. Maybe Jory cassel amde a Stark deck or two.

Funny how different metas still are and how local thrones still plays. Interesting.

Stag's, keep in mind I travel to alot of tourneys, so I get to see a variety of different meta's worth of popular cards.

At this years Days of Ice and Fire event in Minnesota, both Will and I were using the big Lanny Army as well as Desperate Tactics

In most Wildling/NW decks I see a copy of one of the Kingdom locations, specifically I saw Butzlaff using the Wildling one at Days of Ice and Fire.

Jory Cassel I saw in one of Rings Stark decks preGencon last year (granted he loves unique characters)

I see Bear Island in any pure Stark deck and it is currently in my Bolton deck and it is a MONSTER

Flaming Pitch Tower is still a great card, and I saw it in Dan's Targ Regional decklist from DC/NY last year.

Hunting Spear has never left Justin Fox's Bara rush deck that made top four at Gencon of 2009. While that Gencon is almost 2 years ago, he still runs that deck.

Yeah, I actually see a lot of Core Set cards used as well. Other than maybe Bara, I don't see a lot of the *stars* from the Core Set regularly included in decks though. For example, I see plenty of Viserys, Drogos, Dany's Chambers, Summer Seas, Forever Burnings, etc, but I don't see the dragons, Dany, or any of the Core Set Targ armies. I think the same is true for Stark and Lanni...plenty of GTMs, Enemy Informants, Stewards, etc. but not very many Cerseis, Tywins, or (Core Set) Tyrions.

I think this is the main reason it feels like Core Set cards are less powerful. The Core Set provides many of the toolbox cards, resources, and foundational cards but not the cards that you typically think of as "major threats" when you see them in play, like shadows Tyrion/Castellan/Qyburn or cancel Eddard/the Blackfish/king Robb.

Also, other than the streets and a handful of events/attachments, I think most of the neutrals are pretty crappy in the Core Set. At least, compared to cards like Carrion Bird, Val, Samwell, Gilly, King's Landing, etc.

~nobody uses bodyguards anymore....

Dobbler said:

interesting. I know Dan was running stark at NY Regionals and Martell at BF. He ran Targ at DC regionals - i didn't go - that was probably where FPT came in. like I said; its been ages since i have seen it.

I haven't seen a stark deck wihtout neutrals in three eyars. Bear Island was awlays a great kill card - but most people just can't make a stark deck go wihtout soem neutrals. In a Bolton deck - i can see it being wicked good.

The other cards we mention - I just haven't seen them. Hunting Spear - Lanni army - good cards, no doubt. I do thnk different metas tend to play different things.

There is always some good and some bad cards in any set. Some main CS characters was just weak, but hey, do you see new Baratheon brothers often? CS Robert and Stannis rule. I remember Myrcella's guard, Lie for your king, Retreat and Herald of the sun in top 8 last worlds. ktom played lastly with Drogon and Dany. Stukov won OCTGN tournay with Questioned claim in deck. So I can't see a connection here. I think it's simply poor testing thing.

And one more thing: what do you mean by casual players? Those not posting here? They may read but not post, you never know. Also, you have no idea what players not posting here think. They may want bannings or not - you can't know that. Also, I think, competitive players will play anyway and they adapt as you say, but casual players simply will move to another game if they lose fun, because of silly cards.

Wow...here is my list:

Core

Lanni: GTM of course, Jaime once in awhile, Payne more these days, Chella, Bronn, Bywater, Enemy Informers, income guys. Writ, Wrong Dwarf, Lanni Pay Debts. They actually use a decent amount.

Stark: Shaggy, Hodor, ummm...sometimes direwolves? Lethal, Winter is Coming.

Bara: Selyse, Robert (although less and less), Cressen, Edric, Devan, ORP, Army of Faith now

Targ: A's Blade, Flame-kissed, Bones, Drogo, Brown Ben. Forever Burning.

GJ/Martell - zippo

Neutral: Streets, Milk, Aemon, Distraction, Seductive, Bleeds, Mastery (although much less), Bodyguard.

Plots: Valar, Wildfire, Blockade, Power of Blood, Power of Arms, Rule by Decree, Fleeing.

And that is in ALL the decks, I see - and many of them are 1X. Other than Lanni and maybe Targ, no one would really miss having no Core set. Some good nuetral events though.

Clash:

Lanni: Toll Gate, Castellean, Lancel, Army

Stark: Icy C, Bear Island (I agree - awesome card!), Old Nan, Dacey? To Be a Wolf.

Bara: Host...um...

Targ: Flaming-Pitch Tower, Theif, Rhaegar, Harp, the To Be.

GJ/Martell: No GJ (okay, MAYBE Fishwiskers!) other than To Be, Martell has...um...

Nuetral - maybe an Epic or two.

Plots: Fury's.

Actually, that was even thinner than I though. Other than Lanni, an average deck I bet has (non-income generating) 5-6 core cards in it. Count them for me Dobbler in your decks, I bet there are not many.

Rogue30 said:

From my experience as a store owner and organized play promoter, casual players of any card game are less likely than anyone to check out the forums and banned/restricted/limited lists, and just play with the cards they pull in packs. The casual Magic player dosn't even know what Standard or Extended means, and they don't care. They play for fun. So even if we hae a Banned list, that doesn't mean that casual players will listen to it, if they even know about it.

JerusalemJones said:

What he said.

Why can't there just be a "like" button for every website and every thing in life?

Rogue30 said:

So not only do "you have no idea what players not posting here think," but it can be a mistake to assume that what is posted here is representative - without bias - of the entire AGoT-playing world.

Wrecking Ball said:

But, there was just as much talk about it before - the Defenders Agenda, Loyalist, the Bara traitor, that 4/4/4 plot, and talk about many others (the Stark agenda with traitors, the Eyrie, etc.).

just wanted to look further at some of these examples. defender's i kind of missed, but what i remember about it was that it didn't make a mediocre deck better, it was just a really good tool for an already good deck.

Prince's loyalist was interesting, he reminds me a lot of the view of casteallen (repeatable, easy, and non-unique) yes he was eventually banned, but it took a long time and was pretty close to his rotation. I'm still not one hundred percent sure he needed a ban (maybe a unique erratta to bring him in line with the Queen of thornes), but one of the things that made him tolarabel to me was that i had similar (if not as strong) options in other houses too (see Queen of thrones).

The bara traitor i think is a great example of what we should try to do here with what we think will be problem cards. I had a baratheon king deck that i loved and that the traitor would kill, instead of worrying about bannign/erratting i switched it to a targ true queen deck, and splashed king stannis, qot and the the traitor itsefl and along with king robb and queen cersie. I turned a weakness into a strength.

I don't rember much outcry for the eyrie to be banned, I do rember lots of location control getting printed after it came out (you know this counter thing were a strong effect has a way to be stopped by deckbuilding)

the agenda with the traitors was solid, but i'm not sure if it was the cards or the ability to 'scout' that was the real problem.

the 4/4/4 plot i don;t rember that much. i remember a lot of ourtcry, i don;t remember it ever affecting a tourney.

re burning on the sand: i find it a little odd that this one gets all the attention when there are three others (~granted the military one isn;t free....but apparently its better then burning on the sand right?) that actually grant a win in a challenge. The targ one bites me in the ass at least once a play session ( [had a tilde...think i don't want it] can we lift the erratta on bara's fury now since i can't win a power challenge even with fox's theeth the turn i flip it against targ or martell now?) yes martell's is a bit more flexibile in challenge selection, but it can't be used offensively too (nothing like weenie attacking for the win against 2 to 3 times your strength especially as your second attack in that challenge).

JerusalemJones said:

You are right, however I think there is a little more chance for casual AGOT players to visit website from time to time. You know, those newbe rules questions. Then, they are pointed to FAQ.